CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

So Who Actually Wants Same-Sex Marriage?

Aug 4, 2009

Leftist political parties, trendy social engineers, a sympathetic mainstream media, and militant homosexual activists are all ranting about the need for same-sex marriage. It has become a mantra, a touchstone of secular left thinking.

Anyone who dares to question this agenda is treated as a heretic or worse. Our trendy elites would have us believe that everyone is in favour of same-sex marriage – certainly all homosexuals are. But the truth of the matter is far different.

Consider a recent protest rally for homosexual marriage in Melbourne. It had all the usual misinformation, falsehoods and deception. But there was one small bit of honesty to be found amongst it all. Surprisingly, perhaps unintentionally, one homosexual activist gave the game away by actually telling the truth. This is the revealing quote as found in a Melbourne Age article about the rally:

“Providing a reality check, Radical Women spokeswoman Alison Thorne told the Melbourne rally that marriage was an oppressive institution designed to condemn women to lives of slavery, but same-sex couples should nevertheless be equally entitled to it. She then led the crowd in a chant: ‘Kevin Rudd, ALP, we demand equality’.”

Wow, what a great quote. I am sure many fellow homosexuals wished she had simply shut up. And many may be kicking themselves for allowing the MSM to pick up on this juicy quote. Of course it says nothing new. Those of us who are not reliant on a censorious MSM know full well that many, if not most, homosexuals are not even interested in marriage.

Indeed, there has been a longstanding debate amongst homosexuals over the question of homosexual marriage. Some are in favour, some are opposed, and there are many options in between. As one example, one Victorian leader put it this way: “Obviously while there is a lack of unanimity about gay marriage, our human rights must be the same as everyone else’s. If someone wants to get married or doesn’t want to get married, it’s their choice.”

One Australian homosexual lobby group has actually split over this issue. Two committee members have resigned from the New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, claiming it has not pushed hard enough for marriage rights. But the Lobby said that marriage reform was “not a priority”.

Consider just a few of many quotes on this issue. An Australian lesbian said this about former Prime Minister John Howard’s attempts to keep marriage as the union of a man and a woman for life: “When it comes to same-sex marriages, John Howard has got us pretty well summed up. We’re not cut out for it. . . . [Heterosexuals are] welcome to it. ‘For life’! It’d be like sitting through one of those interminable bloody Indian films but when you get to the end it starts all over again and you can’t leave. Let’s leave marriage and other drudgery to heterosexuals. They’ve had millenniums of practice. They’re good at child-rearing and taking out the rubbish. I never wanted to be like them, even when I was one of them. . . . Surely we can come up with something better: semi-marriage or quarter-marriage, which would narrow the field down to eight. Or a casual, part-time or temporary marriage. Or even a flexitime marriage.”

And the same lesbian, when asked whether open relationships work, was quite candid in her response: “I don’t know, but I know closed ones don’t. How many good, loving lesbian relationships have floundered on the rock of sexual tedium? That’s what worries me about our demands for holy matrimony because we want to be ‘just like them’. If we go on demanding exclusive access to those we love, our relationships will end in anger and sadness – just like theirs.”

An Australian homosexual activist put it in even stronger terms: “I think gay marriage is an absolute non-starter as an issue. We have spent the last 40 years trying to get the state out of our bedrooms. Why are we now demanding recognition from John Howard? The notion of these extraordinary, creative, avant-guard gay people rushing to cover themselves in grey cardigans and join their straight cousins in the suburbs with some bureaucratic document just sh*ts me.”

Another Australian homosexual said much the same: “Whether we like it or not, marriage is, as John Howard memorably said, a bedrock cultural institution for heterosexuals; and most gay men seek different rules for their relationships.” And activist Dennis Altman even said that homosexual marriage was “a great deal of self-indulgent crap,” although he later tried to tone down his remarks.

Also, a letter writer to a homosexual newspaper, commenting on Altman’s remark, concurs: “Stop being selfish, and centre your efforts on bettering this world for those that still need to get recognition, acceptance and the right to survive peacefully, before you try getting the ability to get legally married so you can get legally divorced a year later.”

But even those in favour of same-sex marriage do not necessarily think in terms of marriage as is commonly accepted. One homosexual writer for example, Andrew Sullivan, writes that if homosexual marriage contracts come into force, they would have to be “different”: that is, they would have to allow for “extra-marital outlets” and other major changes. Of course that undermines the very essence of marriage, which is the covenant of life-long sexual faithfulness.

Indeed, as even homosexual researchers have admitted, monogamy is fairly rare in homosexual relationships. Many homosexual commentators have made it clear that if and when they do achieve the right to “marry” they will demand to radically redefine what that term means. Several examples can be mentioned here.

Lesbian activist Paula Ettelbrick put it this way: “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . . . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . . . As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. . . . In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. . . . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s views of reality.”

American homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile makes similar remarks, urging activists to “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake – and one that would perhaps benefit society – is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”

And the percentage of homosexuals who actually want marriage rights is very small indeed. In Australia, studies have found that only about one-fifth of homosexuals and lesbians have showed an interest in same-sex marriage. A major article on the subject in the homosexual press found that there are deep divisions over the issue, and same-sex marriage was far from a high priority for most.

So why the push for same-sex marriage?

As many homosexuals themselves admit, a major reason why they want marriage is not so much to be like heterosexuals, or because they want to abandon their more free and promiscuous lifestyle, but because of its symbolic value. It will give them public recognition, approval and acceptance. This has long been the overriding goal of the homosexual lobby: complete social and public endorsement and approval. Thus by getting marriage rights, and, in turn, the last hurdle for gays, full adoption rights, homosexuals will have achieved their longstanding goal: legitimising the gay lifestyle.

A leading American homosexual who has championed the cause of gay marriage, Jonathan Rauch, admits that this will be an important effect of same sex marriage: “it will ennoble and dignify gay love and sex as it has done straight love and sex”. Australian homosexual activists have also acknowledged that their attempt to join heterosexuals in marriage is about legitimacy and acceptance.

Consider the words of one leading figure: “this isn’t about sex, it’s about symbolism. Despite, or perhaps because of, an increase in de facto relationships and divorce, many Australians value marriage highly. For better or worse, it bestows on a relationship society’s ultimate seal of approval. This is why social conservatives deeply loathe marriage equality and why, as the inheritors of centuries of stigma, many same-sex couples yearn for it.” That is what these activists really want: social approval. That is why there is such a concentrated effort to redefine marriage by the homosexual lobby. Indeed, the bottom line of all homosexual activism is ultimately just that: complete social acceptance and approval. As homosexual authors Kirk and Madsen put it back in 1989, “to gain straight tolerance and acceptance is not just a legitimate goal of gay activism, it must be the principal goal.”

www.theage.com.au/national/wedding-protest-sealed-with-a-kiss-20090801-e58u.html

[1530 words]

35 Responses to So Who Actually Wants Same-Sex Marriage?

  • And the reason homosexuals want “public recognition, approval and acceptance” through marriage is to assuage a guilty conscience. It’s the same reason the secular left aren’t satisfied with effective abortion-on-demand in provinces where it is still technically illegal. Like with the homosexuals who already have all the benefits of marriage without the name, the abortionists must have society’s total approval of their actions.

    It’s no accident that many of those MPs who advocate the loudest for abortion ‘rights’ have admitted that they or their girlfriends have had abortions. They want society’s approval in the vain hope that their guilt will be removed once society endorses their past actions. But it won’t work because their guilt is not just a construct of societal disapproval but an inner conviction flowing from a violated conscience which tells them they have sinned. And as we know, there’s only one cure for sin and guilt and His name is Jesus Christ.

    Ewan McDonald.

  • I agree in part with Ewan in that there probably is an element of guilt that homosexuals want to be rid of but I suspect that the consciences of most are so deeply seared and their hearts so rebellious that very few are actually motivated by this to push for deviant “marriage.”

    I am beginning to think that what we are seeing is more a powerplay from what is just another elitist and exclusive group for power over all others in society. This powerplay is against the very heart of the culture and arrogant in the extreme. The fact seems pretty obvious that every bit of ground taken is never enough. From memory there were something in the order of 200 different laws and statutes changed in favour of this minority group when the ALP came to power last. Even this was not enough. I suspect for many in this movement that the end will only be when all others are subservient to this totalitarian ideal and while heterosexuals will be “tolerated” they will be effectively puppets of this hegemony. If this seems far fetched we only have to follow the material Bill regularly posts on the UK and Canada. To be in with this group one must really be in. There is no open tolerance despite the propaganda. To be in members must debase themselves in a similar manner members of outlaw bikie gangs must to “earn” their colours.

    Perhaps their are two or more separate schools of thought within the homosexual community but the reality is that both strike at the heart of God’s order at the deepest cultural level. Some seem to enjoy the deviant status and revel in their rebellion whereas others are more intentional in attempts to turn the whole of society away from God, either way the root motivation is the same. As R J Rushdoony would say, Biblically this is treasonous and destructive of any society it takes root in.

    I understand that many are lured into the lifestyle and trapped and need our prayers and support if, through God’s Grace, they manage to break free but the fact remains that the movement itself, in whatever form, comes out of sin rooted in the pride of life and rebellion against the Creator and His creation. It is sad that many in the Church tolerate bitterness and rebellion of this type. Brokenness no matter how deep is never an excuse for sin.

    Phil Twiss

  • Gordon Brown the UK prime minister, recently said we can’t legislate for love. What does he mean by love? If he means that no one has the power to legislate against anyone experiencing deep and personal relationships, whether this be with God, a family member, neighbour or friend, he is saying nothing more than that truly personal relational ships transcend space and time, are not conditional, and are not exclusive to those in sexual relationships. They are available to all. Jesus Christ, a celibate man, bore witness to the truth that Love is experiencing the source of all love, that of God, and then having the freedom and power, to transmit that same love to the unlovely and undeserving. He was not excluded from loving and being loved.

    So hey, who is denying homosexuals experiencing love and deep personal relationships? No one.
    But if he means “love” as having a licence to sex, not everyone has an inalienable right to this; there are many who through circumstances not of their choosing, have to remain unmarried – in the single state. But no matter, he will make it an inalienable right for everyone give themselves up to their state sanctioned sexual relationships which undoubtedly will come in all shapes and sizes: heterosexual, homosexual, bi- sexual, transsexual, poly-sexual, short term and long term and so on whilst at the same time, as Ben Summerskill has said, to receive the social standing, all the material entitlements and benefits that were once designed to preserve and the sanctity, stability and security of marriage.

    A young kid on a farm might get tremendous pleasure and excitement from driving a vehicle off road. But when he comes to drive on the public highway, he has to observe the highway code, and not any old highway code, otherwise he and others are probably going to get killed. There is nothing particularly exciting about road signs, road systems and rules for driving, but get rid the road systems or mix them all up and chaos ensues. Likewise with fish swimming in water; the subjective experience of using their bodies and senses is one thing but they need water in which to operate and not just any old water; some fish can only swim in salt or fresh water; or water at a certain temperature or pressure., but get of rid of the water and the fish die.

    Get rid of marriage and families die.

    1. In May, 2008 it was reported in the press: “Two women have married each other in a civil partnership – more than 30 years after they became husband and wife. Martin Packer had to annul his marriage to Linda so he could be legally recognised as a woman after a sex change. This left both of them facing a financial blow as they would have had to forfeit certain tax and pension rights. The couple decided to take part in the civil ceremony, despite admitting they are no longer in a sexual relationship. Miss Martin, 60, said: “We are, and always have been, soul mates and best friends ever since 1977 when we got married.” But, to get my gender recognition certificate, we had to get our marriage annulled. “When that happened we would have been liable for inheritance tax but it also messed up life insurance and pension rights.”

    2. In April 2008 it was reported: ‘Two elderly sisters have lost their battle to enjoy the same tax benefits as same-sex couples who register for civil partnerships. Joyce Burden, 90, and her sister Sybil, 82, have lived together in the same house for years, caring for older family members and now for one another.
    Concerned that when one of them dies the other will have to sell the house to cover inheritance duties, the sisters have campaigned for decades to have their relationship treated like a marriage for the purposes of tax law. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 allows same-sex couples to register as civil partners, exempting them from inheritance tax. However, the Act prevents partnerships from being registered between close relatives.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C_rS0OOGlk

    David Skinner, UK

  • I am amused that you position yourself as an expert on what it is “homosexual militants” want “Those of us who are not reliant on a censorious MSM know full well that many, if not most, homosexuals are not even interested in marriage.” Well done for not being reliant on censorious media but I fail to see your issues with censoring when you seem fairly skilled in the trade yourself. I would be interested to know how many homosexuals you know? Or how many homosexuals feel the need to tell you what they want when you seem so hellbent on telling them their “lifestyle” is a “choice” and denounce their ability to discern love from lust. On the censoring issue you seem to have conveniently missed the articles inclusion of a
    “recent Galaxy Poll that showed 60 per cent of Australians were in favour of same-sex marriages — up 57 per cent from its 2007 poll and by 38 per cent on a 2004 survey.” And its apparent from a quick peruse of this website that your committed supporters are unlikely to investigate the issues themselves. What you now represent is a minority, an increasingly distanced minority, equality is winning out and you are obviously unable to handle this fact. What you present in many of your forums is absent of sound science and social research, facts are manipulated beyond repair and there seems to be an increasing public awareness of these tricks.
    Michael Wentburg

  • I’m not sure why activists think that getting the govt seal of approval will result in acceptance? Especially if they ram it down everybody’s throats at gun point.

    It is much more likely to breed resentment and anger if they push to hard. Of course, given the enterprise is doomed to failure (or the culture is doomed if it succeeds) they are unlikely to get the happy ending they want.

    Jason Rennie

  • A friend of mine has just ‘come out’ and is now in a Lesbian relationship. I feel as a Christian I need to exercise Grace abundantly. She realised that I was affronted by what I had been told, but at the same time I must maintain the friendship but not condoning her new ‘living arrangements”.
    Wayne Pelling

  • Thanks Michael

    But the point of this article was to highlight the complete lack of unanimity amongst homosexuals on this issue of same-sex marriage. Given the documentation I have provided (all coming from homosexuals themselves) your comment seems to be yet another case of not liking the findings and shooting the messenger.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • I have suggested to my local MP that as the anti-smoking campaign has been so successful, governments should conduct an educational campaign on homosexuality, showing e.g., that homosexuality is a choice, that homosexuals on average have a life expectancy of 20 years less than heterosexuals, have more illnesses, seldom can make lasting relationships, and so on. I know a well-educated and respected priest who believes they are born that way and so must just be accepted into society. They need help to adjust normally. I would not be happy if one of my grandchildren became homosexual. They need help, not condemnation.
    Tom Wise

  • The Strategy of Sodom Revealed: Audio Excerpts from a Pro-Sodomite Rally

    http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2205182553

    Donna Opie

  • To Michael Wentburg:
    I had to laugh when I read your absurd comment that “there seems to be an increasing public awareness of these tricks.”

    Absolute hogwash. If you asked Mr. so-called-60%-public to explain why marriage is important to society, how it affects the raising of children, and best of all – to describe the behaviour they want us to celebrate and comment on the health risks, not to mention its categorical sterility, watch as you get stony cold silence, half-truths or rabid personal attacks. But full disclosure and rational debate about “sound science and social research”? Are you serious? Open your eyes! Who is really “unable to handle (facts)?”

    Considering that your comment also acknowledged the filtering of information from the MSM, and the majority of the population rely on it for their views, “awareness” doesn’t even make sense. So, your take is that the average person gets a “censorious media”, but they are simultaneously getting better informed? How quaint. I suppose you think that repeatedly entering the wrong numbers into a mathematical equation will give the correct answer too?

    Oh, and btw, Bill’s “censoring” (if you even want to call it that to smear it with some negative overtone) is pretty mild compared to that of, say, The Age, or the ABC. Conduct yourself even half-decently and be willing to put your name to what you believe, you’ll get an airing. That’s pretty fair in my view and also way better than the thousands of anonymous blogs out there. In the aforementioned media outlets, approved leftist views get to the front of the queue, be the subject abortion, climate change, socialist economics, or homosexualist political agendas. Anything else gets the bare minimum (and usually couched in negative terms), just enough to enable the pretense of ‘balance’.

    I value truth. Do you?

    Mark Rabich

  • In response to Michael Wentburg’s reference to the recent Galaxy Poll, the Herald Sun run a poll that went with its coverage of the issue. Click on the link and check out the poll results.

    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25644439-662,00.html

    Anthony McGregor

  • Bill, are you seriously pointing out the fact that people disagree on the issue of same sex marriage? How is this any different to me citing examples of christians who disagree on the issue, im sure you are aware that although you obviously believe you are right on the issue not all christians espouse to this worldview. Your “documentation” consists of less than a handful of “homosexuals”, I could easily find sample a handful of christians and find similar differences. And what findings would they be that I don’t like? If your refering to the few quotes included in your piece I would say the term “findings” should be applied fairly loosely, you did not respond to my comments regarding the galaxy survey, do you not like these findings?
    Michael Wentburg

  • As for the issue of “marriage equality” I think Thomas Sowell provides an enlightened analysis of such a claim:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2006/08/15/gay_marriage?page=full&comments=true

    F. T. Kesina

  • Hey Michael,
    Isn’t homosexuality a choice? I regard it as a choice. It seems that some people are inclined to make the choice to practise homosexuality because they are driven by a desire for intimacy with people of the same sex. Personally, I have always been attracted to the opposite sex. I endeavour to love all people whether they are homosexuals or heterosexuals or transvestites or convicted criminals. But, having said that, homosexuality has always seemed strange and unnatural to me. It seems to me that homosexuality starts with an inner need to be loved and a deficiency of natural affection (e.g. a fatherless boy might be a homosexual because he craves the love of a male). It also seems to me that a disproportionately high percentage of homosexuals have been subject to sexual and/or some other kind of severe abuse. In this way, I see homosexual desire as a weakness/deficiency/mental disorder that people can get over if they want to. I like to believe that “…changing sexual preference is not particularly difficult for those who make that choice”. (as Dr David Barlow, Professor of Psychology at the State University of New York at Albany put it). My ideas aren’t based on any social research other than my own experience but I doubt that you would have any social research to disprove them? Maybe I come across as a narrow-minded bigot? I am interested in your thoughts.
    Alex Parer

  • Thanks Michael

    No I was pointing out that many homosexual activists and leaders differ greatly on the issue. I believe I made that case.

    As to some Christians choosing to reject the very source of authority they are supposed to submit to, they will have to give an account for that one day. It takes nothing away from the clear teachings of Scripture on the topic.

    And so what about your survey? Surveys are far from reliable measures of how people think about these issues. And two can play this game as well if that is what you want. I have in my possession several dozen survey and poll results which show a majority disapprove of special rights for homosexuals, including same-sex marriage. So will you now change your views because of these surveys?

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Bill, You have clearly pointed out the very point I was making, surveys, a few quotes from “leaders” do not mean anything. You seem to have no problem with a passive agressive approach to delegitimising the faith of some christians who believe differently from you, but leave the passive part out for “non-believers”. So lets review what you have pointed out in your article, a) “homosexual leaders” disagree on the issue of gay marriage b) polls are far from reliable measures.The fact is that: a) There are many christian leaders who disagree on same sex marriage b) If polls are inaccurate then surely quotations even less so, so what is it your article is based on? All it appears that the reader is left with is you being uncomfortable with gay people, whilst making an ad hominem attack on me disliking your “findings” but you have just admitted the innacuracy of the measures used in your “findings”.
    Also please do provide me and other readers with references to these current findings that a “majority disapprove of special rights for homosexuals” I am interested as I have not seen these anywhere of late.
    Michael Wentburg

  • I’m afraid Michael it looks like this debate has come to a head. We are deadlocked because no matter what facts are presented this is in reality an issue of the heart. Those of us who are believers stand on an objective truth and for the most part (with remarkably few exceptions in history) have understood that we cannot force what we believe on others having only to trust in the Holy Spirit and rely on the freedom of speech and conscience to present our case for Christ to the world. Are those now pushing for homosexualism as an idealology prepared to present the case on its “merits” (we would love to know what they are – but please spare our children) and allow others to critique it in the same way that Christianity has been critiqued over the centuries? I think you know the answer…
    Phil Twiss

  • Thanks for your vigillance Bill.
    Stan Fishley

  • Michael, you seem to be on the verge of asserting that there is Absolute Truth and that this truth is that gays should have the right to marriage.
    Louise Le Mottee

  • Of course if a poll said that only 40% of Australians were in favour of gaymarriage, you would say that the remaining 60% are bigots and/or need to be re-educated.

    I think if I were inclined, I could make the case that the supposed 60% in your precious poll are actually the bigots and more importantly, that since they are just flat out wrong, they need to be re-educated.

    Louise Le Mottee

  • Michael Wentburg has drawn our attention to the fact that a poll has shown that a majority of Australians approve of homosexual “marriage”. All a poll shows is what people claim to believe at a particular point in time. It does not tell us about their detailed reasoning, the quality of their logic, how well informed they are, what biases influenced their thinking. For all we know the poll result may well be a measure of increased complacency or more fashionable political correctness on the part of the public. In future polls, results may well be influenced by what the majority “thinks” as revealed in previous polls. Poll results can also be shaped by the structure of questions and the emotional colour of the language. The results can also be biased by recent, salient information in the news. For example if there had been a very public scandal involving homosexuals just prior to the polls then probably the poll results would have been less favourable to the homosexual agenda.

    Pity help us if moral issues are to be decided by polls and not by evidence and moral logic.

    John Snowden

  • Mark Rabich, that is a nicely crafted rejoinder to Michael Wentburg. Just where Mr 60% gets his relevant information from is a good question. Speaking of the ABC, has anyone ever seen that impartial organisation interview NARTH psychotherapists about their good work in helping homosexuals to convert to a fullfilling heterosexual norm? Will we ever see politically incorrect science on “Catalyst”?
    John Snowden

  • Not dealing with one’s own guilt is the core of the problem for those addicted to sinning or who have co-operated in, advised or pressured others to sin with them through prmiscuity and also in abortion.
    Vindication is what many people seek rather than forgiveness from the Lord through repentance and a purpose of amendment. Over one million Australians over the last 10 or so years have either had an aborion and also other family, ‘friends’, boyfriends and girlfriends and sad to say even some spouses, have co-operated in aborting thier unborn babies. They will vote for pro abortion candidates if given the stark choice because, once again, unless they have been forgiven, are going to look for justifying what they have done. Sad but true.
    It looks like we have to work al th harder to get the positive message of Christ to those living in situations contrary to the natural law and also to those who have aborted their babies. Otherwise the secular media will cement all these poor through propaganda into a cycle of error and self justification.
    Michael Webb

  • Absolutelty right, Bill. The only people who were duped into thinking the marriage model was appropriate to, or wanted by, homosexuals were middle class “liberal” heterosexuals – so it is particularly galling that such people, with such opinions, have been fooled into promoting acceptance of gay priests, who they think are going to be living in “stable, permanent, faithfull” relationships, in the Church of England/Anglican Communion. Our church leaders are 99% wishful thinking (wanting to “help” and be “nice” to people), and 1% reason/vision.
    John Thomas, UK

  • Thanks guys

    It is hard to stay on the topic at hand with my critics wanting to pick all sorts of other fights. You may be right Phil about this discussion not getting very far – these folk seem to have their minds made up already, and no contrary evidence will sway them. My critics’ responses become ever more odd. Now we are told that we should just discount the homosexual leaders and spokespersons I cited simply because they don’t line up with their view on the matter. If I would not have quoted from any of these folk, I would have been attacked for just making all this up. But when I do quote from them, then their testimony is denied, and we just have another case of attacking the messenger. You can’t win with these guys.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Bill,

    the homosexual ‘leaders’ remind me of the ‘anarchist leaders’ haha.

    Micael Webb

  • Talking about probabilities, it is probable that a majority of passengers on the Titanic, even after it had struck the iceberg, believed that it was unsinkable. It is probable that the majority of the German nation, at the beginning of WW11 believed that the Third Reich would last a thousand years.

    I believe that a survey, carried out by Bailey et al in Australia amongst male twins, one of whom was gay, showed that at least half of them to be gay. These studies suffered from the manner in which subjects were recruited, since the investigators advertised in openly gay publications, resulting in skewed populations Later studies by the same group did not suffer from this selection bias, and found the heritability of homosexuality in Australia was up to 50 and 60% in females but only 30% in males.

    But so what? Even if the methodology of carrying out polls were not skewed; the veracity of a finding does not necessarily mean that we accept it. Just because something is natural does not mean that we model everything on the natural world. Nature performs some pretty horrible acts, such as creatures eating their young or partners.

    The history of progress in science and technology demonstrates precisely a struggle against reality, against the human condition. A poll would show that 100% of us not only believe that we all die, but that a survey would actually confirm that belief. Jesus Christ came to conquer death. He is the way the truth and the life. Do we follow the Bible and believe what it says about us and our condition or do we follow what men think?

    David Skinner, UK

  • There’s an interesting article, in Spanish, on what has happened in Spain since the legalization of same-sex marriage: http://www.forumlibertas.com/frontend/forumlibertas/noticia.php?id_noticia=14023&id_seccion=21

    Government statistics say that in 2007 only 3,193 same-sex couples married. This was a fall of 26% compared to the previous year.

    When the legislation was being proposed by the Socialist Party in government in Spain they said hundreds of thousands of same-sex marriages would take place after the change. In total, from the introduction of the law in July 2005 until the end of 2007 there have only been 8,775 same-sex marriages.

    John Flynn

  • Granting same-sex marriage would probably turn out much like Prohibition in the U. S. (1919-1933). It was a bad idea, but no one knew how bad until it had been tried. Once it becomes obvious that gay marriage is nothing at all like straight marriage — for all the reasons cited in the article — it would be apparent that “marriage equality” was at best a misnomer, and at worst an outright fraud. The upshot: probably less acceptance and more homophobia than before.
    JC Fremont, US

  • I am a homosexual and I legally married my husband in the state of Iowa this past August. While this marriage is recognised in Iowa, a few other states in the US and a growing number of countries around the world, my husband and I currently live in different countries because of the legal impediments to the recognition of our union. This includes Australia, which is my adopted home and a country I have been made a citizen of.

    The issue of gay marriage has far reaching consequences beyond those mentioned in the above commentary. More than being a simple “power stuggle” or means of quieting a “guilty conscience”, the institution of marriage grants concrete rights and responsibilities to the persons involved. I fail to understand why any heterosexual would choose to deny the right of another person to choose to marry another individual, and willingly take on the prescribed responsibilities defined by such an estimed institution as marriage. Some of us DO want to live in a monogamous, life-long partnership with another individual. This right is currently denied to me and my partner because of the personal, and generally religious, beliefs of others. The imposition of one’s personal or religious beliefs into matters pertaining to other peoples’ love lives is completely unacceptable. Far from asking you to change your beliefs, I am simply requesting that you allow me to live my life according to my personal beliefs, especially as my personal beliefs affect my partner and I and do not impinge on your rights, do not affect your marriage or relationships. The last thing I would ever want to do is to diminish, disrespect or belittle your chosen life-style or belief system. I certainly would not campaign against heterosexual marriage, which seems to be the implication of the commentary above.

    I have read your commenting rules, and I hope that I have abided by them. Rather than simply refusing my comments (which is well within your declared rights), I do hope you will publish them and comment back.

    So in answer to the question posed in the title of this topic, I, Corey Jensen, born in the State of Illinois, USA and living in Melbourne Australia REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want Same-Sex Marriage!

    Corey Jensen

  • Thanks Corey

    You raise a lot of points and ask me to respond so let me try my best to do so.

    Yes marriage grants certain rights, but only to those who are willing to meets its basic prerequisites. It does no good demanding the benefits of marriage while denying the conditions thereof. I cannot marry, as much as I might like to, because I am already married. I don’t currently qualify. Neither do nine-year-olds. All sorts of people do not qualify.

    So of course no heterosexual is denying you the right to marry at all. This is for the simple reason that you do not have a right to marry. Never have, never will. You might as well say you have a right to jump off the Empire State Building and fly around New York. Sorry, but simply thinking you have that right does not make it so.

    Marriage throughout human history has always been about two things: the regulation of human sexuality between men and women, and the bearing and rearing of the next generation. So your “marriage” misses out on both basic counts. Simply calling something marriage does not make it so. If a guy really loves his dog (or his football team, or whatever), and really wants to get married, it still is not marriage.

    And children are a key factor in all of this. The social science research is overwhelming as to how they best fare – with their own biological mother and father. That fundamental right is of course denied children in a same-sex household. And of course your camp is making as much noise about adopting kids as it is about SSM. The two are inseparably linked. First your side wants to dismantle the fundamental nature of marriage (one man and one woman), then it wants to destroy its major purpose (the protection and wellbeing of children).

    Also, what does the “imposition of one’s personal or religious beliefs” have to do with anything here? Just what religious arguments have I used anywhere in this article or in my comments? Leave religion out of it altogether, and my case still remains. And if you are saying my personal beliefs don’t count in this debate, then quite obviously neither do yours, so end of discussion.

    And of course there is only one side which is seeking to impose its beliefs here – more like ramming them down our throats. They are quite happy to destroy the institution of marriage which has been around for millennia, simply to push their own alternative lifestyle, and force everyone else to simply acquiesce to and embrace this seismic shift in social institutions.

    Consider your comment, “I am simply requesting that you allow me to live my life according to my personal beliefs”. In addition to of course contradicting what you just said above, such a remark is exactly what every other group is arguing, whether they be polyamorists, or those into bestiality, or those into incest, or those into paedophilia, etc. In many of these cases the advocate can say the same thing as you: “Hey, we love each other, it is consensual, so who are you to stand in our way?”

    By the way, plenty of other groups argue the exact same thing as well, be they racists, Nazis, arsonists, or whatever – they are all making the same autonomy argument: I have a right to my beliefs, so just bug off and let me do my thing. What is being argued here is that personal beliefs and preferences should trump every other concern, whether that of the social good, or the welfare of children, and so on. Sorry, but private lifestyles have public consequences.

    And you know full well that SSM will most certainly impinge on my rights. If the state legalises something, then it must enforce a corresponding obligation for others to recognise, accept and promote that right. Thus groups who are opposed to SSM will be coerced by force of law to accept SSM on all sorts of levels. In this sense granting special rights to homosexuals of necessity takes rights away from the rest of the community.

    As to you really wanting SSM, with all due respect, so what? Some people really want to see group marriage legalised, or incest legalised, or all sorts of other sexual combinations and permutations legalised. Simply wanting something a lot does not mean it is right, or desirable for the good of society.

    Moreover, whether you like it or not, you already have been involved in a “campaign against heterosexual marriage”. You are fully involved in the deconstruction of the institution of marriage, simply by redefining it out of existence and setting up alternatives to it. And when the social concept of marriage is undermined, it leads to the weakening of every individual marriage as well. Marriage is not just a personal bond, but an important social institution. They both feed off one other, and to weaken one is to weaken the other.

    And as I tried to demonstrate in the article, plenty of homosexuals do not want SSM. And as the more honest homosexuals of course admit, long-term monogamous homosexual relationships are clearly the exception, not the rule.

    Sorry for the long reply, but I’m afraid I am just not buying your arguments here. But thanks for sharing your thoughts.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Hi Corey,

    I have to ask the obvious question, you said,

    This right is currently denied to me and my partner because of the personal, and generally religious, beliefs of others.

    How so? What is stopping you having a ceremony and making commitments to one another? To arranging finances, powers of attorney, wills, etc to reflect your wishes?

    The short answer is, just like any other two individuals in society, the answer is “nothing at all”.

    Of course, for all the talk of rights and responsibilities, the real motive is not marriage at all, but some perceived attempt to get society as a whole to recognize the legitimacy of your relationship and using the force of law to have your opinions enforced at the point of a gun on people who would dare to disagree.

    Jason Rennie

  • With all due respect, Corey, it is not the imposition of ideas onto you that is the issue, it is the forcing of your way of life onto the majority of the population that is the issue. To put it personally (the way you do to emotionalize the issue) you would force me to recognize that which I consider morally wrong as morally good. That affects my life profoundly. It is no different than expecting me to change my point of view on such basic moral issues as murder or lying. That is not hyperbole, it really is that important.

    But it is not just about you and me. It is about a great deal more than that. You are expecting a massive change in society just to suit your distorted sexual tastes. Last week President Obama claimed that he looked forward to “a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman”

    Such a statement chills me deeply. Note the language too. He is obfuscating the issue – the defining point of disagreement is the specific sexual act, but you will never hear any militant even allude to in public – because they know most people will find it extremely distasteful. That in itself is an admission that homosexual sex can never be considered something “admirable” or worth celebrating – it degrades the purpose and design of sex. Male and female so obviously go together it seems almost absurd to have to state it. But in this upside-down world it seems that biological facts are trumped by politically correct agendas. Agendas which declare that stating straightforward facts about the human body are equivalent to ‘hate speech’ or unreasonable ‘discrimination’. It is nothing of the kind – to most it just seems on a par with stating the sky is blue and rain is wet. Male and female go together. Well, yeah – so what? So, you see, it is not a personal fight, so I don’t appreciate your attempts to try to define the issue this way.

    However, for your sake, I wish you would reconsider your lifestyle, as you are likely doing major damage to yourself in all kinds of serious ways. You have the freedom to do what you like behind closed doors, but that freedom does not extend to changing facts or calling others names for resisting a major change in societal norms. You may think you are the victim here, but you are actually the militant protagonist – seeking to change lives around you when people have actually left you alone to begin with. Otherwise, how is it that you got to where you are now? Why is it their fault you abused your freedom to do things you ought not have?

    If you remember nothing else, remember this. Your very own body defies you. Perhaps you can explain to me why, in all likelihood, if you were to engage in sex with a woman, (assuming infertility isn’t an issue) such a union could bear real fruit very soon?

    Your own body is clearly built for heterosexual behaviour, Corey – it testifies against you defining yourself or identifying as ‘homosexual’ – so why do you think you have a valid argument?

    Mark Rabich

  • Hi Corey,
    If he is your husband, what are you? The wife or the other husband? This is a genuine question.
    Rachel Smith

Leave a Reply